DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
This office action is in response to the communication(s) filed on 04/13/2026.
Claim(s) 1-22 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 8-15, and 22 is/are withdrawn.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 16-21 is/are currently presenting for examination.
Claim(s) 1 and 16 is/are independent claim(s).
Claim(s) 1-7 and 16-21 is/are rejected.
This action has been made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 04/13/2026 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicant's arguments with respect to 35 USC § 112 second paragraph rejection of claim 16-21 is acknowledged. Therefore, rejection to the claim is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-7, 16-17, and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US_20230113810_A1_You in view of US_20230164648_A1_Wang.
Regarding claim 1, You discloses a method performed by a wireless communication device, enabled to perform a Dual Active Protocol Stack (DAPS) handover, HO, from a source node/cell to a target node/cell (You figures 2-4), the method comprising: responsive to detecting a radio link failure, RLF, on a source link between the wireless communication device and the source node/cell, generating a RLF report related to the source node/cell (You paragraph 56, “At S210, a terminal device transmits first indication information to a network device. The first indication information indicates that an RLF occurs between the terminal device and a source cell in a handover process of the terminal device from the source cell to a target cell using a DAPS handover scheme.…”, paragraph 64, “…the first indication information may be an RLF report.…”); responsive to detecting a RLF on a target link between the wireless communication device and the target node/cell, generating a RLF report related to the target node/cell (You paragraph 63, “…the failure of the DAPS handover may refer to the terminal device failing to access the target cell, or the terminal device successfully accessing the target cell and the RLF occurs between the terminal device and the target cell”, paragraph 68, “Alternatively, the type value may indicate that the type of the RLF report reported by the terminal device is an RLF report of the RLF occurring in the source cell during the DAPS handover and the terminal device failing to access the target cell”, and paragraphs 72, 75); including an indication on a subsequent uplink radio resource control, RRC, message to a network node that the wireless communication device has one or more RLF reports related to DAPS HO failure (You paragraph 108, “… the terminal device may transmit second indication information to the network device before transmitting the first indication information. The second indication information indicates whether there is RLF information and/or DAPS handover failure information in an RLF report reported by the terminal device…”, paragraph 109, “…the second indication information may be carried in RRC connection reconfiguration complete (RRCConnectionReconfigurationComplete) information”); responsive to receiving a request from the network node to send the one or more RLF reports, transmitting the one or more RLF reports to the network node (You paragraph 110, “…after receiving the second indication information, the network device may transmit request information to the terminal device, and the request information is used for requesting information from the terminal device…”, paragraph 113, “transmitting, by the terminal device, response information to the network device, in response to the request information, the response information including the first indication information, e.g., an RLF report”).
You does not explicitly teach generating a RLF report related to the target node/cell indicating the RLF on the target link.
Wang from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches: generating a RLF report related to the target node/cell indicating the RLF on the target link (Wang figure 4, target link failure, paragraphs 130, “…the indication information may indicate that the target link failure occurs after the source link failure…”, paragraph 139“a target link failure, i.e., indicate that the first link failure is a radio link failure that occurs in the target cell of the handover ( e.g., the DAPS handover failure, etc.).”. Also read paragraphs 203, 206, 212, 380).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Wang into You, since You suggests a technique for RLF reporting during the DAPS handover, and Wang suggests the beneficial way of the RLF report including indication information indicates the target link failure thus help the network side solve problems encountered during the handover (Wang paragraph 77) in the analogous art of communication.
Regarding claim 2, You and Wang teach the method of claim 1, and Wang further teaches further comprising storing the RLF report related to the source node/cell (Wang figure 5, step S302, and paragraphs 304-308, source link failure).
Regarding claim 3, You and Wang teach the method of claim 1, and Wang further teaches further comprising storing the RLF report related to the target node/cell (Wang figure 5, step S302, and paragraphs 304-308, target link failure).
Regarding claim 6, You and Wang teach the method of claim 1, and You further teaches wherein the indication that the one or more RLF reports are related to DAPS HO failure is included in a RLF cause value (You paragraph 85, “…the first information may be a cause field, which may indicate that the RLF occurs in the source cell during the DAPS handover process or indicate the cause of the RLF in the source cell during the DAPS handover process”).
Regarding claim 7, You and Wang teach the method of claim 1, and You further teaches wherein the indication that the one or more RLF reports are related to DAPS HO failure is provided in an information element for indicating DAP HO failure (You paragraph 108, “… the second indication information may be an available RLF information (rlf-InfoAvailable) field…”).
Regarding claim 16, You and Wang teach the limitations as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, You and Wang teach the limitations as set forth in claims 2 and 3.
Regarding claim 20, You and Wang teach the limitations as set forth in claim 6.
Regarding claim 21, You and Wang teach the limitations as set forth in claim 7.
Claim(s) 4-5, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US_20230113810_A1_You in view of US_20230164648_A1_Wang and US_20230262565_A1_Chang.
Regarding claim 4, You and Wang teach the method of claim 2, and but do not explicitly teach wherein storing the RLF report comprises storing each RLF report with a same RLF report information element.
Chang from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches: wherein storing the RLF report comprises storing each RLF report with a same RLF report information element (Chang paragraph 57, “…a UE variable used to store the radio link failure report is VarRLF-Report…”).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Chang into You and Wang, since You and Wang suggests a technique for the UE storing RLF report, and Chang suggests the beneficial way of a the UE uses variables and elements to store the RLF report thus store the RLF information in organized manner (Chang paragraph 57) in the analogous art of communication.
Regarding claim 5, You, Wang and Chang teach the method of claim 2, and Chang further discloses wherein storing the RLF report comprises storing each RLF report in a RLF report information element such that each RLF report information element contains only one RLF report (Chang paragraph 126, “…The UE records link failure information corresponding to the source base station RLF in the link failure report variable such as VarRLF-Report…”).
Regarding claim 18, You, Wang and Chang teach the limitations as set forth in claim 4.
Regarding claim 19, You, Wang and Chang teach the limitations as set forth in claim 5.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WEIBIN HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3695. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30AM - 6:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sujoy Kundu can be reached at (571)272-8586. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/W.H/Examiner, Art Unit 2471
/SUJOY K KUNDU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights